ExpandCollapse

New Member

Those scripture verses in the notes of the NIV are not "missing", but purposely put
in the footnotes as they were not found in the earliest manuscripts. Below
is some of the information. We have in-depth and extensive resources available online that provide detailed information about the translation process and background of the New International Version.http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/mct/4.php
Blessings, Marilynne for the folks at IBS

In the 17th century, King James's translators worked from the Erasmus Greek
text of the New Testament. Erasmus had six Greek manuscripts from which to
work. NIV translators work from more than 5,000 complete or partial
manuscripts and papyri. Isn't the King James Version Good Enough?

(The KJV and the NIV Compared)
Edwin H. Palmer

I love the King James Version. I was converted under it, my first memory
verses were taken from it, and I have been blessed by it. And God still uses
the KJV to bring many people to salvation in Christ. This version was
translated by godly men who did an excellent job with the tools they had in
the language of four centuries ago. Countless millions have been converted,
sanctified, and nurtured through it. Thank God for that marvelously used
translation.

The KJV is not, however, the best translation to use today. This is so for
two reasons: (1) it adds to the Word of God and (2) it has now-obscure and
misleading renderings of God's Word.

Additions to the Word of God

The KJV translators did not intend to add to the Word of God. They did their
best, but all they had to work with was a handful of copies of the Greek
manuscripts of the New Testament books. These were very late copies dating
from a thousand (!) years after the New Testament was written. In a few
sections they had no Greek manuscript at all! Instead, they had to rely on
the Latin Vulgate's rendering of what they thought must have originally been
in the Greek!

Through the providence of God, many more Greek manuscripts had been
preserved and were subsequently discovered-in fact, more than five thousand
of them. Some were very old indeed, dating back much farther than the
relatively few the KJV translators used. Some of the Greek manuscripts date
back to the four hundreds and three hundreds-even to abouta.d. 200. These
ancient manuscripts were more reliable and accurate, not being corrupted by
errors made during countless times of copying, such as occurred with the
late manuscripts used by the KJV.

As a result we know today, with a high degree of accuracy, what was in the
original writings.1 Uncertainty now exists in only an infinitesimally small
part of the New Testament (the difference would be comparable to that
between "don't" and "do not" or "street" and "way").

Some examples of verses that the KJV added to the Word of God, even though
it did so unwittingly and in all innocence, are Matthew 17:2l; 18:11; 23:14;Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37;
15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24; 1 John 5:7b-8a. In addition many phrases
and words were also added.

A striking case of where the KJV, following bad Greek copies of the original
text, changed the original is John 1:18. The KJV says: "No man hath seen God
at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared him." John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of
those few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But,
without fault of its own, the KJV, following inferior manuscripts, altered
what the Holy Spirit said through John, calling Jesus "Son." Using the
archaic language of the KJV, the verse should read: "No man hath seen God at
any time; the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared him." Or to say it in a modern and elegant way: "No one has
ever seen God, but God the One and Only [Son], who is at the Father's side,
has made him known" (NIV).

Some Evangelicals get concerned because some modern paraphrases do not
really give us the Word of God. They distort, alter, and revise it. This
concern is justified because we believe that the Bible is the very Word of
God, and we do not want any paraphrases to change what the Holy Spirit
inspired. Yet some of these same evangelicals calmly go on reading the KJV,
which in many places has added to (and so changed) God's very words. Such a
practice is unfortunate.

Obscure and Misleading Renderings

The KJV has now-obscure and misleading renderings of God's Word. This is so
in part because some English words have changed their meaning since 1611. It
is bad enough when translators have available only inferior copies of the
original text of God's Word, but when, in addition to that, their
translation of the Hebrew and Greek conveys erroneous ideas, the problem is
compounded.

This is not to say that the KJV did not do an admirable job-for its time. We
should thank God for it. Many of the examples of erroneous translations
given below were not errors in 1611 when the KJV was published, but they are
definitely errors today in view of the current meanings of those words.
(see Web site http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/index.php)

ExpandCollapse

Member

Interesting that this article does not note that of the 5,000+ manuscripts discovered, over 90% agree with those from which the KJV was translated. The article criticizes the KJV because the translators only had 6 Greek manuscripts. The footnote in my NIV in the middle of Mark 16 says, "The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20." Sounds like overwhwelming manuscript evidence in the light of 5,000+. 6 is not enough to be accurate, but 2 that change what had been accepted as God's Word for 1,800 years are accurate? Where is the intellectual honesty here?

Got to grant you the obscure words, though.
For example:
Acclamation vs. voice in II Chron.15:14
Alcove vs. little chamber in Ez. 40:13
Blunted vs. cut in pieces in Ps. 58:7
Colonnade vs. porch in I Kings 7:6
Fomenting vs. speaking in Is. 59:13
Porphyry vs. red in Esther 1:6
and hundreds more. Of course, in each case above, the first (obscure) word is from the NIV while the plain one is from the KJV.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Originally posted by Chris1984:
In the 17th century, King James's translators worked from the Erasmus Greek text of the New Testament. Erasmus had six Greek manuscripts from which to work. NIV translators work from more than 5,000 complete or partial manuscripts and papyri. Isn't the King James Version Good Enough?

Click to expand...

I think you get this idea from naturalistic scholars from some sources where I found the facts.

NIV -- 5,000 MSS? Is that true?

The KJV is not, however, the best translation to use today.

Click to expand...

Ok, let's see, how many MSS support the KJV? Be honest! Due to your knowledge of these MSS, how percent of MSS agreeing with the KJV?

Obscure and Misleading Renderings

Click to expand...

Well, you got the BIG problem concerning the doctrine of Jesus on NIV. Look at 2 verses in the NIV. (Example)

John 5:31 NIV ""If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. "

John 8:14 NIV "Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, ..."

Some examples of verses that the KJV added to the Word of God, even though it did so unwittingly and in all innocence, are Matthew 17:2l; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Romans 16:24; 1 John 5:7b-8a. In addition many phrases and words were also added.

Click to expand...

Tell me, how would you solve some problems on these passages that you stated they added in the KJV? Be honest! Due to your knowledge, why are these passages found in massive MSS where NIV negated?

the verse should read: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Click to expand...

Who beget God? Do you mean that God beget God? Do you deny Jesus is God's begotten Son?

ExpandCollapse

<img src=/Ed.gif>

Well, you got the BIG problem concerning the doctrine of Jesus on NIV. Look at 2 verses in the NIV. (Example)

John 5:31 NIV ""If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. "

John 8:14 NIV "Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, ..."

2 verses on NIV contradict the doctrine of Jesus.

Click to expand...

Get real the same
problem exists in the KJV1769. But KJBOs
really do have problems, for they have
NTHER STANDARD to turn to.
I, an honest modern versionist, have
multiple standards which to turn to.
I don't even have to turn to the Greek
(which i can't read anyway )

The KJBO comic book philosophy is bankrupt,
producing phariseeism.
In fact, some KJBOs even go so far as
to be in total lie: prefering the KJV1769
(a modern version) over the KJB1611
(you know, the version authorized by
King James). Yes, some do need to have
a reality check.

ExpandCollapse

<b>Moderator</b>

Moderator

No, actually it is more than that. 5000 is the closest easy rounding number. It is somewhere closer to 5500 I think. The point is that the NIV uses all of them. The KJV uses a scant minority, less than 1/10 of 1%.

Ok, let's see, how many MSS support the KJV? Be honest! Due to your knowledge of these MSS, how percent of MSS agreeing with the KJV?

Click to expand...

In some cases, the KJV is supported by no manuscripts. Yes, you read that right ... No Greek support for some passages.

Well, you got the BIG problem concerning the doctrine of Jesus on NIV. Look at 2 verses in the NIV. (Example)

John 5:31 NIV ""If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. "

John 8:14 NIV "Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, ..."

John 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true:

Hmmmm ... Let's study this a minute ... Yes the KJV has the exact same contradiction of hte doctrine of Christ. So are you prepared to stand by your attack on God's word? Or will you, having been shown the error of your way repent of your attack on God's word?

Tell me, how would you solve some problems on these passages that you stated they added in the KJV? Be honest!

Click to expand...

Ues a modern version, which is what I do.

Due to your knowledge, why are these passages found in massive MSS where NIV negated?

Click to expand...

Because they were copied from the wrong manuscripts. 1000 copies of an error does not mean it is right. No matter how many times the error is copied, it is still wrong. That is why some of these passages are found in a lot of manuscripts.

Who beget God? Do you mean that God beget God? Do you deny Jesus is God's begotten Son? [/b]

Click to expand...

Knowing the meaning of monogenes would help here. The word means "unique" or "one of a kind." Jesus, the word, is the unique or only God. He is not some secondary God or created God. He is teh only God. This is the most powerful passage in Scripture to refute the JWs, but you cannot do it from a a KJV. You have to use a modern version to get this explicity testimony to the deity of Christ.

John 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true:

Hmmmm ... Let's study this a minute ... Yes the KJV has the exact same contradiction of hte doctrine of Christ.

Click to expand...

Witness and record are not same meaning. No contradiction!

Ues a modern version, which is what I do.

Click to expand...

You use them because they are corrupted.

Because they were copied from the wrong manuscripts. 1000 copies of an error does not mean it is right. No matter how many times the error is copied, it is still wrong. That is why some of these passages are found in a lot of manuscripts.

Click to expand...

Did God errorly and wrongly preserve His Word in these MSS?

Knowing the meaning of monogenes would help here. The word means "unique" or "one of a kind." Jesus, the word, is the unique or only God. He is not some secondary God or created God. He is teh only God. This is the most powerful passage in Scripture to refute the JWs, but you cannot do it from a a KJV. You have to use a modern version to get this explicity testimony to the deity of Christ.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

In some cases, the KJV is supported by no manuscripts. Yes, you read that right ... No Greek support for some passages.

Click to expand...

List those verses please;but bear in mind,there are NO Greek manuscripts(Early or late) that reads like the NASV reads in Luke 1:25,21,31,18;! Thessalonians 1:6,3:3,2:13;Hebrews 1:13;Acts 13:47,13:39,10:16,10:13;Philippians 1:8;how do you account for that??

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Originally posted by AV Defender: there are NO Greek manuscripts(Early or late) that reads like the NASV reads in Luke 1:25,21,31,18;! Thessalonians 1:6,3:3,2:13;Hebrews 1:13;Acts 13:47,13:39,10:16,10:13;Philippians 1:8;how do you account for that??

Click to expand...

Probably because there is no such thing as the "NASV".

Maybe you mean the "New American Standard BIBLE in which case we will need your source and will have to do some homework.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Strong followed the KJV error that was based on the Vulgate. The Vulgate mistranslated monogenes as unigenitus--a false cognate based on an etymological misread. Instead of mono=uni and genes=genitus therefore both mean sole+begotten, it was mono=one + genes=kind. Gennao is the root of one of the words rendered (begotten vs. kind), but not the other.

Of course, this will mean nothing to a KJVO, but everyone else should recognize what a great witnessing tool the correct translation is when evangelizing JWs and Muslims.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Excluding the disputed passages referring to Jesus, every appearance of 'monogenes' in the NT is a reference to begotten offspring. Is this merely coincidence?

Hebrews 11:17
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

Luke 7:12
Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.

Luke 8:42
For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.

Luke 9:38
And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child.

When referring to the Father, monogenes is never used, but only with the Son. Another coincidence? Or perhaps Jesus is unique and one of the kind, but not so the Father? The NIV messed this one up big time. I thank God for my trustworthy King James Bible!

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
Strong followed the KJV error that was based on the Vulgate. The Vulgate mistranslated monogenes as unigenitus--a false cognate based on an etymological misread. Instead of mono=uni and genes=genitus therefore both mean sole+begotten, it was mono=one + genes=kind. Gennao is the root of one of the words rendered (begotten vs. kind), but not the other.

Click to expand...

Strong defines monogenes:

"monogenes = only-born, i.e. sole:-- only (begotten, child)."

"mono = only."

"genes = beget, be born." GenEs is from the word, GennaO which mean to "be begotten."

The full word, "monogenEs" means "only begotten" that the KJV translated from the TR Greek.

ExpandCollapse

<b>Moderator</b>

Moderator

Originally posted by Askjo: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The point is that the NIV uses all of them. The KJV uses a scant minority, less than 1/10 of 1%.

Click to expand...

You are unbelievable to say that.

In some cases, the KJV is supported by no manuscripts. Yes, you read that right ... No Greek support for some passages.

Click to expand...

Again, you are unbelievable to say that. </font>[/QUOTE]Except both of these are true. You should know this. The Greek text of the NIV and NASB considered every single Greek Manuscript. The Greek text of the KJV does not. This is common knowledge to people who know what they are talking about. They may differ on where they come down about the reliability of these manuscripts, but they know these simple facts.

Witness and record are not same meaning. No contradiction!

Click to expand...

The Holy Spirit inspired John to use the same word. One is noun form (5:31 - marturia); the other is the verb form (8:14 - martureo). So John thought these two things were the same. It is only by some strange quirk of translation that you think they are different. On this point, you should stick with teh Holy Spirit; He was right when he wrote it.

This is a place where you have listened to false teachers and believed them without bothering to check what God actually said.

As for the KJV having verses with no manuscript support, here are some examples: Isa 13:15; Rev 17:8; Rev 16:5. There are some others but that will keep you busy for a while.

You use them because they are corrupted.

Click to expand...

Why would I use something because it is corrupted?? That doesn't even make sense. You are charging me with deliberate corruption of God's word and that is highly offensive. You can differ with me without stooping to such levels.

You asked what a person should do with the added verses in teh KJV. I said use a modern version where these verses were not added.

Did God errorly and wrongly preserve His Word in these MSS?

Click to expand...

No, we have the preserved word of God. But God did not perfectly preserve his word as testified to by the existence of more than 5000 different manuscripts. No two of these manuscripts match. Therefore, by your own standard, you must charge God with wrongly preserving his word. (I don't think "errorly" is a word but perhaps someone can look it up.)

Strong's Concordance would not agree with you concerning "monogenes."

Click to expand...

Strong's concordance is what you use when you cannot use other lexical resources. You would be better off using something better geared to the problem. Strong's gives a very simply gloss for words. It is not intended to be used as a definitive source. BAGD, the standard lexical work for NT Greek, say "only, unique." If you use your STrong's to look up the other 5 or so verses where monogenes is used, you will find that that the definition I give is exactly the right one, and there will be one usage that will completely refute your understanding.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Originally posted by AV Defender: but bear in mind,there are NO Greek manuscripts(Early or late) that reads like the NASV reads in Luke 1:25,21,31,18

Click to expand...

I just did a quick comparison. All of these verses are essentially the same in the NASB and KJV. You are going to have to define more precisely what you think was included or omitted without mss support.... unless you are saying that both versions are wrong.

ExpandCollapse

Banned

Originally posted by Ed Edwards: Get real the same
problem exists in the KJV1769. But KJBOs
really do have problems, for they have
NTHER STANDARD to turn to.
I, an honest modern versionist, have
multiple standards which to turn to.
I don't even have to turn to the Greek
(which i can't read anyway )

Click to expand...

Kind of reminds me of those archaic families who had consistent parents. When the mischievious boy who couldn't get his way with one "standard" ran to his "other standard", she would bust his behind and send him back to Dad

The KJBO comic book philosophy is bankrupt,
producing phariseeism.
In fact, some KJBOs even go so far as
to be in total lie: prefering the KJV1769
(a modern version) over the KJB1611
(you know, the version authorized by
King James). Yes, some do need to have
a reality check.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Originally posted by Askjo: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The Greek text of the NIV and NASB considered every single Greek Manuscript. The Greek text of the KJV does not.

Click to expand...

I do not think you told me the truth. Let me show something that contradicts with your statement.

Example:1 Peter 1:22 on Papyrus 72 agreed with the KJV. However modern versions rejected this verse. How would you say that the Greek text of NIV and NASB considered EVERY SINGLE Greek manuscript? </font>[/QUOTE] Papyrus 72 is one out of many. Considering something does not mean that it gets selected. It means that different things are compared with the one that appears most likely to be original is selected.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No, we have the preserved word of God. But God did not perfectly preserve his word as testified to by the existence of more than 5000 different manuscripts.

Click to expand...

Did God make any mistakes? </font>[/QUOTE]How would you answer this question? You would have us believe that no one had the perfect Word of God before 1611... or maybe that's 1769. So if God perfectly preserved His word in the way you demand that He did, why was the KJV (which was unlike every Bible produced before it) necessary? If it was always perfectly preserved then the KJV must obviously be a perversion of something that was already perfect.

God did not perfectly preserve the exact wording of the originals. That is so obvious only an idiot or the willfully ignorant could miss it. This fact is testified to by over 5000 Greek mss that all differ from one another.

God's Word, the substance of His communication in the originals, is perfectly preserved. This fact is also testified to by over 5000 Greek mss and the fact that the faithful translations we have today teach the same doctrines and message.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

Originally posted by Askjo: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Except both of these are true. You should know this. The Greek text of the NIV and NASB considered every single Greek Manuscript. The Greek text of the KJV does not.

Click to expand...

I do not think you told me the truth. Let me show something that contradicts with your statement.

Example:1 Peter 1:22 on Papyrus 72 agreed with the KJV. However modern versions rejected this verse. How would you say that the Greek text of NIV and NASB considered EVERY SINGLE Greek manuscript?

No, we have the preserved word of God. But God did not perfectly preserve his word as testified to by the existence of more than 5000 different manuscripts.

Click to expand...

Did God make any mistakes? </font>[/QUOTE]It takes a lot on a discussion board to make me lose my patience, but that was just petty and childish. There was nothing in the statement made to justify your response to it; consideration does not mean adoption. Editors can consider a manuscript, but that doesn't mean they'll adopt its reading. Many times the KJV editors put a variant reading from their manuscript collection into the margins--because they thought it likely to be the correct reading but not as likely as the one they chose to use in the body of their text. And if a reading they considered was deemed unlikely, they were under no obligation to even note it in the margin at all.

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!